those who are handling their own cases, KNOWING that
America's judges would rather EAT ROADKILL than to even consider ruling in favor of a pro
se.

I have begun to 'cover' my motion papers (those fancy
backing pages every lawyer uses) with the J.A.I.L statute. Using 9 pt font, I can squeeze it onto two 8 1/2 x 14 " pages with
a 2" margin at the top and bottom.

That way I can fold it over the top to cover the staples
of the motion papers so as to protect the judge and opposing counsel

from suffering injury due to an errant staple. (They cut
and bleed rather easy you know)

The regular readers of J.A.I.L. News Journals have oft
heard the statement that J.A.I.L. will one day eventually encompass this
entire country from sea to shining sea, as is also announced on our
website at http://www.jail4judges.org/national_001.htm.

Nothing makes a point like
one's opposition, and in this case, it is the American Bar Association, to
wit, "Half of U.S. Sees 'Judicial Activism Crisis.' " In other
words, according to a poll conducted by the ABA, half of America sees the
judiciary for what it is, an unaccountable entity in need of oversight outside
and beyond itself. While this ABA article says nothing directly to
confirm J.A.I.L.'s claim that it will one day encompass all America,
it does layout the very reason why this will be so.

The American Bar Association's
answer to this "overwhelming problem" reflected in their poll is to "educate"
the American People on how the judiciary works. Of course, our respond is
to say that the more the ABA tries to inform the American People on
how the judiciary works, the more People will see the judiciary for what
it is -- a totally corrupt and unaccountable entity that has totally run
amuck with the Constitution and the laws of our nation -- men who make
up laws as they go.

It should be quite
interesting watching the ABA trying to place a good face on our nation's
judiciary. Like bring gasoline to a fire, their comments will surely fan
the flames of controversy, enlarging the fireline. Thousands of People
with experience will rush to the front lines of the controversy to engage with
the ABA. You can count on the fact that every word of the ABA will be
dissected and will become the subject of another controversial subject of
debate. The bottom line is, if the ABA is thinks the viewpoints of the
American People are misguided, just wait until the ABA tries to clear up the
problem and give the judiciary a face lift. I'm looking forward to this
engagement. In reality, the ABA will draw more attention to
the answer found at <Federal
J.A.I.L.> located above in this heading.

More than half
of Americans are angry and disappointed with the nation's judiciary, a new
survey done for the ABA Journal eReport shows. A majority of the survey
respondents agreed with statements that "judicial activism" has reached the
crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters' values should be impeached.
Nearly half agreed with a congressman who said judges are "arrogant,
out-of-control and unaccountable."

The survey results surprised some
legal experts with the extent of dissatisfaction shown toward the judiciary.
"These are surprisingly large numbers," says Mark V. Tushnet, a constitutional
law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington,
D.C.

"These results are simply scary," adds Charles G. Geyh, a
constitutional law professor at Indiana University School of Law in
Bloomington.

The Opinion Research Corp. conducted the survey, calling
1,016 adults throughout the country in early September. Participants included
505 men and 511 women aged 18 or older. Due to the effects of Hurricane
Katrina, residents of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi were not
polled.

Calls were made to a random sample of American households.
Those surveyed were asked questions about their age and education levels, and
were asked to give one of six answers-strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither
agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or don't know-in
response to public statements criticizing the judiciary.

Fifty-six
percent of the respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the opinions
expressed in each of two survey statements:

a.. A U.S.
congressman has said, "Judicial activism . seems to have reached a crisis.
Judges routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore
traditional morality." (Twenty-nine percent strongly agreed and 27 percent
somewhat agreed.) a.. A state governor has said that court
opinions should be in line with voters' values, and judges who repeatedly
ignore those values should be impeached. (Twenty-eight percent strongly agreed
and 28 percent somewhat agreed.) Forty-six percent strongly or somewhat
agreed with the opinion expressed in a third statement:

a..
A U.S. congressman has called judges arrogant, out-of-control and
unaccountable. (Twenty-one percent strongly agreed and 25 percent somewhat
agreed.) Among the respondents, younger adults were less likely than older
adults to agree with all three statements. Those with a college education were
more likely to disagree with the statements than high school graduates.

Only 30 percent of respondents somewhat or strongly disagreed with the
first statement and 32 percent felt the same way about the second statement.
The most disagreement was reflected in the responses to the third statement,
with which 38 percent took issue.

Two percent to 3 percent responded
"don't know," and the remainder of the respondents neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statements.

The margin of error for the survey is
plus or minus 3 percentage points, at the 95 percent confidence level. Opinion
Research Corp. says survey results were "weighted by age, sex, geographic
region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total
population."

The congressman referenced in the first question is Rep.
Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who made the comment at an April 2005 rally in
Washington, D.C. The governor in the second question is Matt Blunt, a Missouri
Republican, who reportedly made the comment during an interview with a
religious publication in May 2005. The congressman in the third question is
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who made the comment in March
2005.

Several legal scholars responding to the survey results were
startled by the numbers.

Georgetown's Tushnet says he didn't realize
the level of dissatisfaction was so high. "What I had thought was the case was
that there was a significantly higher residue of general respect for the
courts," he says. "And these numbers suggest that that's not true."

Geyh of Indiana University says the survey suggests "a trajectory"
upward in the number of people unhappy with the American judiciary-apparently
simply because these critics disagree with the law that judges have a duty to
apply.

The idea that judges should "somehow follow the voters' views
really reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to
do," he continues. "They should only be criticized when they ignore the law
and start infusing their own values into the law regardless of the law."

But one legal scholar with an alternative viewpoint is not surprised.
The survey results reflect the reality that "there is a lot of judicial
activism under any definition," says John O. McGinnis, a professor at
Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago.

"This problem has
been coming for a very long time," he says. "I think, for most of [the past]
century, the idea of the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted
formally and without regard to the judge's own values has been under attack."
Judges today also do not give due deference to legislative decisions, and too
frequently strike down statutory law, he adds.

Part of the problem,
too, McGinnis believes, is that legislators on both sides of the aisle are
conducting judicial confirmation hearings as though the candidates' personal
political views are relevant to their role on the bench. "Everyone thinks
that's what [judges] do, and they just want their own values" to be reflected
by the judiciary, McGinnis says.

In a written statement, Rep. Smith
said judges today "seem to be promoters of a partisan agenda, not wise
teachers relying on established law." As a co-equal branch of the federal
government, however, the judiciary is subject to congressional oversight as
part of our system of checks and balances, he continued. So "Congress is right
to evaluate judges when they behave like unelected superlegislators who want
to implement their own social agenda."

Spokespersons for Blunt and
DeLay did not respond to requests for comment.

The survey figures did
not catch ABA President Michael S. Greco by surprise, either. Instead, he
views the results as further confirmation of the need for new ABA programs now
under way to educate the public about how American government works, and the
role played by judges in a democratic society. Judicial independence is also
the subject of three feature articles in the October issue of the ABA
Journal.

One of Greco's first actions after taking office in August was
to appoint a Commission on Civic Education and the Separation of Powers. In
his President's Message in the October Journal, Greco said the commission was
created to address what he terms an "alarming increase in rhetorical and
physical attacks on the judiciary." The bipartisan commission is intended to
educate Americans about the role of an independent judiciary in U.S.
government.

A poll commissioned by the ABA in July from Harris
Interactive showed a "shocking" 40 percent of respondents could not correctly
identify the three branches of government, Greco wrote.

The commission
will help rectify this situation, Greco says, in two ways: First, it will
"find out why it is that half the people polled don't know how their
government works." Second, it will work with teachers' groups to address "this
sorry state of civic education."

Greco hopes to bring lawyers
throughout the country into the nation's schools on Law Day as part of a
larger program of civic education about the separation of powers and the role
of the judiciary. "This is in the preliminary stages, but the thought is,
around Law Day, have a program that is carried on C-Span and perhaps beamed
into every school in the country."

Held on May 1 each year, Law Day is
recognized as a time to focus on how the rule of law makes democracy possible.

Robert H. Rawson Jr., a Cleveland lawyer who chairs the commission,
emphasizes that these educational efforts will be nonpartisan. "Our objective
is not to get into the politics of judicial selection, but rather to fill what
appears to be a gap in general public understanding of the fundamental role of
a judge," he says, and "restore what needs restoring-the confidence and trust
of the American public in the judiciary."

The commission has two
honorary co-chairs: retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
and former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

The October ABA
Journal includes three features on judicial independence:

a.. A roundtable discussion by legal experts on recent
attacks on the judicial branch. b.. A look at hot-button cases
that are raising the hackles of the American public. c.. A
report on how Serbia is addressing issues of judicial independence and the
rule of law in its effort to enter the European Union.